Movies in Scenarios

[Cpl Steiner]

Just a suggestion but I think it would be cool to start each scenario by showing some library footage of real US military harware and personnel from Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever. I remember this technique being quite effective in "M1 Tank Platoon 2". Presumably such footage is available for free these days?

It would probably only be suited to the single player US perspective campaign though.

[Sixxkiller]

Wouldnt that make the files rather large?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

It would probably only be suited to the single player US perspective campaign though.

I think the game is already going to be viewed as US-centric, though, based on what has been said publicly about it. Having what amounts to recruiting videos before every scenario probably won't alter that perception. Marketing a US vs. Syria game will be tricky enough, I think. In the context you write of - in scenarios obviously from a US perspective - I can see it, sorta, but the absence of same from a Syrian viewpoint...I dunno...

I know that Panzer Commander had videos for their campaigns too - and were all from the German POV, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. Did you have that game in mind when you made this suggestion, out of curiousity?

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did you have that game in mind when you made this suggestion, out of curiousity?

Michael,

Sorry, no, just "M1 Tank Platoon 2".

Personally I don't think the game can realistically have a "Syrian POV" given the back story, unless you happen to be vehemently anti-American or pro-Islamist. I therefore don't think we need to have Syrian army footage, although if there is any around from military exercises or from News footage of Syrian involvement in Lebanon I wouldn't mind it being included.

This is not to suggest that it won't be fun going the Syrians now and again. As the Syrian player I wouldn't necessarily identify with the Syrian side's POV but I would still get a kick out of teaching the American player some lessons in humility and respect for his opponent!

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did you have that game in mind when you made this suggestion, out of curiousity?

Michael,

Personally I don't think the game can realistically have a "Syrian POV" given the back story, unless you happen to be vehemently anti-American or pro-Islamist. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, we've had the same discussions with CMX1 also re: identifying with various nationalities, so that's nothing new - kind of an individual choice, really.

[Sergei]

I remember the good ol' Steel Panthers 2 had something like that - short crappy videos from different decades (the game covered 1950-1999) of both US and Soviet hardware (and I think Korean war Chinese infantry).

Since the videos never had anything to do with the battle at hand except occasionally, they didn't really add anything to the game. Besides, nowadays the gold standard is to do introductionary videos with the game engine.

[tankibanki]

I find the videos in M1TP2 quite annoying. Can't reach the space key quickly enough to abort them.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner

Personally I don't think the game can realistically have a "Syrian POV" given the back story, unless you happen to be vehemently anti-American or pro-Islamist.

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

That is a puzzling statement

Can you expound on it a little more before I take you to task on it?

Rudel,

From the CM:SF website: -

At it's core, Combat Mission: Shock Force is a military simulation depicting a hypothetical near-future conflict in Syria following a fundamentalist coup d’état. As in Afghanistan 2001, the radical new government's refusal to shut down major terrorist organizations and its' regional destabilizing effect, compel NATO Coalition forces into action.

Rudel,

I think I know where you are going with your query, i.e. that as wargamers we don't have to actually support the ideology of the side we are playing to still enjoy playing them in preference to another side. For example, plenty of people love to play the Germans in WWII wargames but that doesn't make them all fascists.

If that is your point then I whole-heartedly agree. In retrospect I think my words regarding anti-Americanism or pro-Islamism may have been badly chosen. I was just thinking of the odd player who might actually relish the opportunity to take the Syrian side and bash the living daylights out of the Yanks with IEDs, snipers and what have you. In view of the back story provided, such an attitude might raise a few eyebrows.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner

Personally I don't think the game can realistically have a "Syrian POV" given the back story, unless you happen to be vehemently anti-American or pro-Islamist.

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

That is a puzzling statement

Can you expound on it a little more before I take you to task on it?

Rudel,

From the CM:SF website: -

At it's core, Combat Mission: Shock Force is a military simulation depicting a hypothetical near-future conflict in Syria following a fundamentalist coup d’état. As in Afghanistan 2001, the radical new government's refusal to shut down major terrorist organizations and its' regional destabilizing effect, compel NATO Coalition forces into action.

Rudel,

I think I know where you are going with your query, i.e. that as wargamers we don't have to actually support the ideology of the side we are playing to still enjoy playing them in preference to another side. For example, plenty of people love to play the Germans in WWII wargames but that doesn't make them all fascists.

If that is your point then I whole-heartedly agree. In retrospect I think my words regarding anti-Americanism or pro-Islamism may have been badly chosen. I was just thinking of the odd player who might actually relish the opportunity to take the Syrian side and bash the living daylights out of the Yanks with IEDs, snipers and what have you. In view of the back story provided, such an attitude might raise a few eyebrows. </font>

[Cpl Steiner]

rudel.dietrich,

Are you one of the beta testers? It sounded like it from your comments. If so, congratulations on getting to see the game before everyone else and I hope everything is progressing smoothly.

I fully appreciate your comments regarding the Syrian side and believe even more so now that my earlier comments were not very helpful. As you say, even if you don't identify with the regime, you can still identify with the individual Syrian soldier, who is probably a decent guy just trying to stay alive whilst doing his best to defend his homeland against a powerful invader.

Put like that I think I will enjoy playing the Syrian side as much as you!

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

rudel.dietrich,

Are you one of the beta testers? It sounded like it from your comments. If so, congratulations on getting to see the game before everyone else and I hope everything is progressing smoothly.

I fully appreciate your comments regarding the Syrian side and believe even more so now that my earlier comments were not very helpful. As you say, even if you don't identify with the regime, you can still identify with the individual Syrian soldier, who is probably a decent guy just trying to stay alive whilst doing his best to defend his homeland against a powerful invader.

Put like that I think I will enjoy playing the Syrian side as much as you!

Yes I am a beta tester

I wonder if I am allowed to say that? No one else seems to have mentioned it!

Hope im not saying something im not

Anyways, I think I took offense to your comments too easily.

But I just dont like generalization comments where one side is good and one side is bad

Even in Iraq this is not true. You see on the news where a car bomb kills scores of innocent people. But that does not nessacarily make the side that placed the bomb evil. It is a chaoitc confused situation where desperation has taken hold and some men are doing what they think is right to grab power.

Power in that part of the world means your ethnic/tribal/religious group is not being slaughtered by another thnic/tribal/religious group that is in power.

That is a very hard thing to understand in the West but I think we have to understand it since we are now directly connected to that part of the world.

Even if we do not understand it, we have to understand that it is making some men whom under normal circumstances are pretty balanced intelligent men into men who will take up arms and kill.

That is a very powerful thing. And since I do not understand it I have to try and get control of my gut reaction and western upbringing and not declare such a thing as 'wrong' or 'evil'

Anyways

I dont want to get this off topic which I think I already have

I guess since this is what I do at work at least one day a week it carries over into other parts of my life

[Abbott]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Anyways, I think I took offense to your comments too easily.

But I just dont like generalization comments where one side is good and one side is bad

Even in Iraq this is not true. You see on the news where a car bomb kills scores of innocent people. But that does not nessacarily make the side that placed the bomb evil.

Bull****.

[Cpl Steiner]

Rudel,

Oh dear, now look what you've started!

At the risk of being flamed myself, I think the problem is the word "evil" itself. It implies a desire to be wicked for its own sake, as if to please some profain deity like the Devil, when in reality people usually commit evil acts for more complex reasons, such as tribal loyalty, fear of the other side, peer pressure, and respect for authority (as in "I was only following orders"). Let us not forget that US soldiers massacred hundreds of villagers, including babies, at My Lai in Vietnam. Were those men evil? A psychologist coined the term "banality of evil" in an effort to understand such acts.

Banality of Evil

[Sixxkiller]

Dont they make you sign the general NDA when you become a tester?

And if you do this "one day a week" in real life, how is it you think people who place bombs to terrorize non-combatants are not evil? If they placed a WMD instead would that upgrade them in your eyes?

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

rudel.dietrich,

Are you one of the beta testers? It sounded like it from your comments. If so, congratulations on getting to see the game before everyone else and I hope everything is progressing smoothly.

I fully appreciate your comments regarding the Syrian side and believe even more so now that my earlier comments were not very helpful. As you say, even if you don't identify with the regime, you can still identify with the individual Syrian soldier, who is probably a decent guy just trying to stay alive whilst doing his best to defend his homeland against a powerful invader.

Put like that I think I will enjoy playing the Syrian side as much as you!

Yes I am a beta tester

I wonder if I am allowed to say that? No one else seems to have mentioned it!

Hope im not saying something im not

Anyways, I think I took offense to your comments too easily.

But I just dont like generalization comments where one side is good and one side is bad

Even in Iraq this is not true. You see on the news where a car bomb kills scores of innocent people. But that does not nessacarily make the side that placed the bomb evil. It is a chaoitc confused situation where desperation has taken hold and some men are doing what they think is right to grab power.

Power in that part of the world means your ethnic/tribal/religious group is not being slaughtered by another thnic/tribal/religious group that is in power.

That is a very hard thing to understand in the West but I think we have to understand it since we are now directly connected to that part of the world.

Even if we do not understand it, we have to understand that it is making some men whom under normal circumstances are pretty balanced intelligent men into men who will take up arms and kill.

That is a very powerful thing. And since I do not understand it I have to try and get control of my gut reaction and western upbringing and not declare such a thing as 'wrong' or 'evil'

Anyways

I dont want to get this off topic which I think I already have

I guess since this is what I do at work at least one day a week it carries over into other parts of my life </font>

[Sergei]

People who blow bombs with the intent of harming civilians (or knowing that there is a risk of 'collateral damage', if the intent is to harm soldiers), well, certainly they aren't any nice fellows. Calling them evil is not out of the question if you have a religious mind, but then should we call WW2 airforce commanders 'evil'? Or was that the 'necessary evil'...

OTOH I would draw a clear distinction between soldiers of Syrian Army trying to defend their homes against an invasion (even if under a crooked government) and some sectists planning to bomb a mosque of the other faction. Sure, even the latter can be seen as merely practising the fine art of total war (and whatever Macchiavelli said about morals), but the former ones are at least based on the same standards as our militaries.

[panzermartin]

I think Steve said that scenarios briefings will be vastly improved anyway. An overhead view of the 3d map and some screenshots of it would do the work I guess. It wont be bad if you could insert real photos as well.

As for the evil POV..I dont see why a non american would prefer to identify himself with the US side honestly. I mean did you enjoy them blowing hopeless iraqis in obsolete tanks who were actually defending their country against an illegal invasion? CMSF scenario is similar to the OIF in some ways. Having no problem to play as the "evil nazis" yet finding it hard to sympathize with a syrian defending his country is a bit weird.

[Battlefront.com]

OK... let me try to sort this out.

No movie clips. They always become annoying because there is no way you can ever have enough variety for them not to be. Plus, I've had the unhappy experience of finding, capturing, and editing videos for a game once. It is an enormous amount of work for a piece of fluff that people turn off part way through their first game and leave off for every after.

As others have pointed out, some people will never be able to play the Syrian side. Just like a fairly large number of people did not have any interest in playing the Germans or the Soviets in CMx1 games. Some people find it hard to detatch themselves from the game and real life. It's not something anybody can argue with.

Evil is a matter of perspective. The people who purposefully kill children in the name of their version of God could be called "evil" for a number of reasons by a number of religions. But to their own version, they are doing God's will. And unfortunately, one can not be so quick to condem that since just about every religion on the face of this Earth has an exception clause for ill treatment of people that disagree with the "one true faith". So "evil" is a relative term.

Since most of us live in the West, we tend to take the same view on this and therefore we generally have a consensus that killing civilians, on purpose or through willful neglect, is wrong. Though we do make exceptions, such as the firebombing of Dresden or the two nukes dropped on Japan. The pilots that dropped those bombs were few in number but killed and causes suffering to an extent that the Jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere can only dream of causing. Yet we do not think of those pilots as "evil" (victims excepted, since I've seen plenty of Hamburg and Dresden surviors take a different view). So let's be careful before we point fingers. Humans, as a general rule of thumb, suck.

Now, as for using an IED to blow up a military target. That's not "evil" even in Western eyes. At least when it is not purposefully using civilians as bait, shields, or what not. It is a legitimate right of any people to attack a military target. They're supposed to do it in uniform, of course, but no occupied country I can think of has ever obeyed that rule of war. Certainly the Brits can testify that Colonists here in the US didn't. They also behaved rather, uhm... shall way say poorly, against civilians they disagreed with too. And if the US were occupied by a military force today, I know for a fact that Joe Bob Six Pack would not be putting on a uniform and standing out in the open to engage the enemy. Nor would he be too kind to the old lady down the road who was nice to the oppressor. It's sad this is what it comes down to, but rather mundane historically speaking.

Steve

[ April 06, 2007, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]